Standing Committee A

[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]

Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]

Clause 1 - Eligibility for travel concessions: age

Ann Widdecombe: Before I call the Minister, may I remind all members of the Committee to switch off their mobile phones and pagers; I take a dim view of anything that goes ring in the night.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. First, it is very nice to see you in the Chair—welcome back after your absence; we look forward to being under your chairmanship. Secondly, we had a discussion at the end of this morning's sitting about the scope of our debates on the Bill. I also had an informal discussion with your co-Chairman as to whether it was in order to debate other groups that might be included in the Bill.
 The long title of the Bill states that it will 
 ``Amend the law relating to the age at which certain persons become eligible to receive travel concessions on journeys on public passenger transport services; and for connected persons.'' 
The Bill principally seeks to amend section 240(5) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and section 146 of the Transport Act 2000. I have looked up those two sections, which, in addition to talking about people of pensionable age, discuss all other categories of people. I put it to you, Miss Widdecombe that if we are not allowed to talk about those sections of previous Acts which the Bill seeks to amend Standing Committees would become so narrow that it would be almost impossible to amend any Bill. It is unfortunate if we cannot discuss disabled people, blind people and people suffering from mental disabilities. If we are going to be ruled out from discussing those groups, interest groups outside this Room will be surprised. I seek your ruling on this matter.

Ann Widdecombe: I have, of course, already been appraised of what has gone on. There is a distinction between amendments, which must be limited to the strict scope of the Bill, and discussion, which it is within the discretion of the Chairman to allow to go slightly wider if it is deemed appropriate. Mr. Stevenson has allowed reference to the impact of age equalisation on other concessionary schemes, for example those concerning disabled and blind people. It is therefore my intention to take a very relaxed view during the stand part debate.
Mr. Clifton-Brown indicated assent.

Ann Widdecombe: Not too relaxed. I shall allow the debate to go slightly wide, but not wild.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Miss Widdecombe. How is your ruling affected by the words
``and for connected purposes'' 
in the long title? It seems to me that that allows scope for amendments in the way in which I have been proposing.

Ann Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Bill has been drawn up in a narrow way. There has been a ruling, which I cannot overturn, by Mr. Stevenson that there must be a narrow interpretation of the scope of the Bill as far as amendments go, but that does not preclude discussion. The hon. Gentleman must make his case in the course of discussion if he wants us to reconsider that ruling.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Spellar: This clause is the substance of the Bill and directly provides for the age entitlement to concessionary travel to be equalised at the age of 60 for both men and women. Subsections (1) and (2) amend the Transport Act 1985 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 so that both men and women are eligible at the age of 60 for travel concessions granted at the discretion of local authorities in England and Wales.
 Subsection (3) changes the definition in section 146 of the Transport Act 2000 so that elderly persons entitled to the mandatory half-fare concessions on bus services are men and women who have reached the age of 60. 
 Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales to link the provisions in the Bill to the formula in schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995, which provides for the age entitlement for state pensions to rise to the age of 65. Should the power be exercised, the link to entitlement to concessionary travel with state pensions would eventually be restored. In fact, orders made under the power would treat a man as if he were a woman born on the same day. The age of entitlement will still be the same for men and women, but it will gradually rise every couple of months, as prescribed in schedule 4 to the 1995 Act, until 2020, when men and women will be eligible for the state pension and travel concessions at age 65. 
 Subsection (5) provides for any orders made under subsection (4) to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: After that quick canter through the scope of the Bill, we should perhaps try to get the Minister to expand on what he envisages will be covered by it, by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and by the Transport Act 2000. As I have said, it is clear that those Acts, which we are seeking to amend, cover a wide range of other categories: the disabled, the blind, those with mental impairment, and all who would otherwise be unable to get a driving licence. It seems quite reasonable for those people to be included in such schemes. They form part of the overall sum that I referred to this morning, which the Government are giving to the people of this country in the form of travel concessions.
 We have also discussed the important matter of the scope of clause 1 in relation to cross-border issues. I have already mentioned my local authority, Gloucestershire county council, which has five bordering authorities. Under the Bill as drafted, a person who travels from Mickleton to Evesham to shop, draw benefit or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said this morning—visit the local hospital will be unable to do so. That will put men aged 60 to 64 who fall within the scope of the Bill at a considerable disadvantage. In effect, we are creating two social groups: those who are already eligible by virtue of the 2000 Act and the 1999 Act, and the men who are covered by the Bill. The Bill could therefore perhaps be clearer on cross-border issues. Those Acts refer at length to journeys that are begun in one transport area and end up in the next, or that are begun in one area, cross another and end up in a third. 
 In particular, the Government need to clarify that issue in relation to the Prime Minister's wish for pensioners to be able to take long bus journeys, because they involve crossing many local authority boundaries. In that regard there is a certain amount of fog, and if the Minister could clear it my constituents would benefit, as would those who live in rural local authority areas that are lot smaller than mine. The chances are that such people will cross county or local authority boundaries much more quickly than do my constituents. The geographical area of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is much smaller than that of mine, and I have no doubt that many of his constituents will want to cross from Gloucestershire into Worcestershire and Warwickshire, and perhaps further afield into Wales. The example of the pensioner who takes a bus journey to Wales—it is true that the Bill covers Wales, but such a journey would cross from one jurisdiction to another—raises yet another problem. The Minister therefore needs to consider some of these issues carefully. 
 The Minister dealt with clause 1(4), which relates to schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995, a copy of which I have in front of me. I also have a copy of the table, which is quite long, covering two and a half pages. I am not sure where the Minister fits into that table, but I have an interest to declare because I come within it and would not be covered by the scheme until 6 March 2016. The Minister can quickly look at the table and work out my date of birth. We all have an interest in the matter and I suggest that it does not make much sense. If one concedes the principle that everyone aged 60 or over will receive the concession, can we realistically believe that any Secretary of State in the year 2010 will want to increase that age? Imagine him sitting in that chair and saying that he will not put it down to 60 for everyone, but that he will raise it to 67 or 68 for everyone to make it fair. There would be an outcry. 
 It would be worth putting on the record whether the Minister realistically expects clause 1(4) to be enacted and the pensionable age to be altered. Under subsection (5), an order must be made by statutory instrument in both Houses to do that. Unless the Minister's successor--I doubt that he will still be the Minister in 2010--intends to have the Standing Committee that considers the order particularly well under his control, I suspect that there will be difficulty in getting the order through. 
 Others matters will be discussed later. During our debates this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned waterways and I have some interesting news for him from the 1999 Act in relation to the precise matters that he discussed this morning and the Thames. However, before you rule me out of order, Miss Widdecombe, that is for a subsequent amendment. 
 Are we to have a reply from the Under-Secretary? 
Mr. Spellar indicated dissent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: No. The Minister of State is going to reply. I hope that his response will clarify what other groups the Bill may apply to, the cross-border issues and whether he realistically believes that his successor will ever enact the pension age changes.

Andrew Turner: Thank you for calling me, Miss Widdecombe. I welcome you to the Chair.
 I want to retrace our steps to some of the Minister's final words this morning when he gave certain pledges--I am grateful to have heard them--on support for the extension which the Bill requires to apply to non-mandatory as well as mandatory schemes, including cross-border schemes with interoperability of travel concessions between different local authorities. That is not of local interest to my constituents, because, as you know well, Miss Widdecombe, it has no borders. It is a matter of interest to most other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those outside the metropolitan areas. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referred to the clash of criteria across the metropolitan boundary of London. 
 The Minister said that it was possible and, indeed, expected that the Government would support the extension of the scheme to cross-border travel. Miss Widdecombe, I would like to draw attention to a ruling by your co-Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, who said that the Bill does not apply to cross-border travel. I asked him for his definition of a border in that context because the Bill clearly applies across some borders, such as those where there in one scheme, whether it is a statutory or non-statutory scheme. It applies in the London area, where there is a statutory scheme and in an authority, such as Hampshire, between Hampshire county council and Southampton city council. Were there to be such a scheme between those two authorities—I have no knowledge as to whether there will be—the Minister's promise would apply, as would the Bill. I am therefore a little unclear as to which borders are and are not relevant under the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raises a good point indeed. In the light of the vast Transport Act 2000, under which we are seeking to amend clause 146, I direct him to clause 147 to observe the gobbledygook that we pass in this place. I shall quote that to him, and to the Minister:
 ``The Secretary of State . . . may by order amend either or both of sections 145 and 146 for or in connection with securing that section 145(1)''. 
Section 147(c) contains the real gobbledygook so I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight to concentrate hard. It 
``applies to a journey between a place in a travel concession authority's area and a place outside but in the vicinity of that area or to a journey between places outside but in the vicinity of that area (as well as to a journey between places in that area),'' 
If he understands that, he has done better than me. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain it so that we know how the travel concession scheme works.

Andrew Turner: I would very much like the Minister to explain that but, as I understand the procedures of this place, I must try first.
 It is clear to me that a scheme can operate between, say, a travel concession area, such as Southampton city council, and a place just over the boundary—I take it that that is what is meant by ``in the vicinity of''—or between two places outside the boundary with or without a detour into the travel concession area. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong. That demonstrates that the particular border of the travel concession area is, to some extent, irrelevant as far as travel concessions are concerned. 
 When I was a member of Oxford city council, if I remember correctly, the scheme provided for people who lived on council estates that were outwith the city boundary. Oxford city council provided for them to be eligible for membership as if they were within the city boundaries. I am still a little unclear as to why certain boundaries cannot be considered under the Bill and others fall under it. I would like the Minister to explain that. 
 I will now return to questions that I asked this morning and to which, I regret, I received no answers. The Minister may recall them, so I will not state them in detail, but the first referred to the imbalance of concession between, say, the London area and a rural area. If an area already has a more expensive scheme, the Government will effectively spend more on supporting it than on one that is less expensive. I described it as giving money to the rich areas. In fact, it is to them that hath shall be given, and to them that hath not shall be given absolutely nothing—at least, not very much. That seems an unfair aspect of the Bill. 
 I understand the concern that the Minister would face in London if he supported the extension of the scheme by only 50 per cent. On the other hand, equal concern exists in rural areas that money, which the Minister is putting aside, is being diverted to favour metropolitan areas even though rural areas have more difficulty with transport and schemes in those places may be less expensive per head—I nearly said per man—because of the dearth of transport there. That runs contrary to the Government's objective of enabling more public transport to be provided in rural rather than urban areas. 
 My other point concerns the types of transport that are eligible for support. I mentioned earlier that there is no reference, so far as I am aware, to water taxis or water buses in any of the legislation. I asked whether the Bill covers travel concessions on those means of transport, but the Minister could not answer this morning. Can he do so now?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In section 240(6) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, another of the sections that we are amending,
```independent transport service operator' means any person, other than a person to whom subsection (7) below applies''. 
It goes on to list those who may become an independent transport service operator, and refers to 
``(f) an undertaking providing public passenger transport services on the river Thames or a tributary of the river Thames between places in Greater London or between places in Greater London and places outside Greater London.'' 
My hon. Friend may have been taken as being wide of the mark this morning, but talking about water taxis gives him a precedent. If people in London can get concessionary fares on transport on the Thames, I see no reason why the Government should not extend the concession to his constituents travelling from the Isle of Wight.

Andrew Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that example. Clearly, by that definition, the river Thames is both above and below the high tide mark. I believe that the tide runs to Teddington, so the provision does not apply simply to non-tidal waters. I therefore expect it to be possible in the future, if not in this Bill, to provide the concession to travel on water taxis, water buses and other passenger ferries plying between places on the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
 The Minister does not seem to have provided clearly for that extension and I can understand why: he hopes that it will not take place. We will consider that later. Nor has the Minister provided for traffic generation. Several of my hon. Friends and I asked about the consequences of traffic generation in providing resources to meet the costs of the Bill. As I recall, the only promise that the Minister has made is to reimburse the costs of extending the concession. Does that promise apply only to the first year, which would upset local authorities, does it extend infinitely, which might upset the Chancellor—although I am happy with that—or does it extend to some time in the future, yet taking account of traffic generation? Clearly, traffic generation, as I mentioned earlier, will result from the legislation. The Government have made, or declared, no provision to take account of that and reimburse local authorities for the cost of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's answers.

Chris Grayling: I retain two areas of anxiety about the impact of the clause. First, although the Minister was pressed quite hard earlier on the likelihood that local authorities will be completely reimbursed for the extra costs incurred, some of his comments—he used the word ``broadly''—left me unconvinced that when the small print is examined in detail by every local authority, they will find every last penny met. The implication is serious, not simply because of the impact of this legislation but because in recent years central Government have developed an unerring habit of introducing new rules, regulations and stipulations, which they require and expect local authorities to implement, but examination of the detail reveals that local authorities end up having to pick up part of the bill. Consequently, year on year, local authorities pile up extra financial burdens, which, however small, leave them with less disposable income to spend on local services.
 I hope that the small print of the Bill will not lead to local authorities ultimately incurring extra costs. I take the Minister back to his use of the word ``broadly''. Can he give us an unequivocal statement that if any unforeseen circumstances emerge that affect individual authorities, it will not be a matter for debate because the Government will be committed to picking up the tab?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raises an important point, to which the Minister did not give a clear response this morning. In practice, when a local authority discusses its standard spending assessment with the Government, a range of issues are bundled up into one. I suspect that this would be just one of those issues and unless the situation became extremely serious it would probably be forgotten. Nevertheless, it has an impact on the council tax and we all know about the recent large rises in council tax in shire counties.

Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is often easy for those in central Government to forget the disproportionate impact that small amounts of money can have on the council tax. Such a high proportion of local government finance comes from the centre and only a relatively small proportion is raised through the council tax, that even the smallest adjustment or shortfall in a local authority's available funding can have a significant effect on that tax. The cumulative effect of that happening in several different areas can have a significant effect on the ordinary taxpayer.
 Secondly, many authorities, such as mine in Surrey, have not yet been able to develop the breadth of concessionary fare schemes that they would wish. That is the result of various factors. The case that I described to the Minister this morning arose because Surrey has had to divert its resources for public transport into supporting a number of socially necessary bus services. The council retains the aspiration to introduce, as soon as possible, a flat rate 50p fare for buses across the county. The Bill will make it more expensive for it to do so and it will not be entitled to receive any compensation. Will the Minister consider introducing a period—not open ended, but time limited—in which new schemes can be introduced that will still benefit from the compensatory package that is available? 
 At its most basic level, the content of the Bill presents little reason for debate or question, but when one examines the practical consequences of even the most simple legislation, potentially adverse effects on local communities can become evident. I hope that the Minister will accept the comments of Conservative Members in the spirit in which they are intended.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on another matter that he mentioned this morning—that is, how local authorities will introduce new schemes? We need to know what sort of discussions with the Department will be required in order for them to get clearance to do so. This morning, the Minister made the important concession that the Government will pay for any existing schemes that rely on unequal ages. That seems to give a green light to all local authorities to hurry to introduce schemes before the Bill is implemented, after which there will be a two-tier system.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a valuable and important point to which the Minister will be well able to respond. That is another example of the fact that what is at first glance simple proposed legislation can throw up some significant complications. I hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments and take them into account in the structure of the legislation. If, however, we cannot convince him to make the small number of modifications suggested by Opposition Members, then at the very least I hope that he will accept the spirit in which the proposals are being made. When he deals with authorities and sets future funding parameters, I hope that he will remember hon. Members' contributions and take them into account in reaching future decisions.

Laurence Robertson: May I start by welcoming you to the Committee, Miss Widdecombe? It is always a pleasure to work with you.
 I want to touch on one or two of my earlier arguments that the Minister did not fully address when he wound up the debates on the amendments. I should also like to pick up some points that have already been made. 
 This morning, I said that the Bill addresses a real concern because transport is important. In my constituency, which is not as large as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) but is nevertheless very big and contains several towns and many villages, transport is a problem. We have bus services but they are inadequate. Whether children are travelling to school or pensioners and older people are travelling to do their shopping or go to hospital, the situation is unsatisfactory. The Bill goes some way towards addressing that problem but, as my hon. Friend said, there are still gaps that we should like further to explore. 
 Two particular areas concern me. The point about the cost to the local authority has been pressed with great determination by my hon. Friend, but he has not got the answers that Opposition Members were seeking. We are all in constant touch with our local authorities: it is not only the Tewkesbury local authority that says it is being given more to do without being compensated and it is not only Tewkesbury that is complaining about the support that it gets from the Government. When it sees another scheme being proposed, it is naturally concerned about the financial impact. We have heard that there will be general compensation—that was not quite the word that the Minister used, and if he would like to remind me of exactly what he said I should be grateful.

John Spellar: Broad.

Laurence Robertson: Yes. Local authorities broadly will be covered. Tewkesbury local authority could argue that local authorities broadly get increases in the revenue support grant, which Tewkesbury has not received. The broad concept is unsatisfactory.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has also pressed the question why we do not compensate local authorities for the exact costs that they have incurred, which seems sensible. I accept the Minister's point that that does not always happen in every aspect of local government, but there are aspects in which it does. Several transport schemes are promoted and managed by the county council and the Government give it grants to promote those schemes. However, the borough council will be responsible for administering this particular scheme. There is an obvious gap: an agreement could be made on how much Tewkesbury would receive, but during the financial year Tewkesbury's requirements could change considerably. How broad is the Government's guarantee? It strikes me that this could create a big problem for Tewkesbury.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has hit upon an important point. The county council is the precepting authority, but the district or borough council is the collecting authority. The county council sets the scheme and raises the money, but the district council has to collect the money and operate the scheme. This is an anomaly that has not been properly addressed in the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The county council largely determines the council tax that will be raised because it has the bigger budget. However, Tewkesbury borough council would be blamed for the increase because it sends out the letters. Anything that the county council does directly impacts on what Tewkesbury has to collect. If the Government increased the money for Gloucestershire to introduce new bus routes, Tewkesbury would then have to administer the scheme. I accept that the Government might one day finance that, but there is a big gap in between.

Andrew Turner: It appears that there are different arrangements in some shire counties from those pertaining in others. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said on 4 July that pensioners in his constituency would benefit from the new arrangements in the Government's scheme for half fares. The pass is valid in the area covered by the local authority--in his case, that is Suffolk. That implies that the power is common to both shire and shire districts. In some parts of the country, it is operated by the district and in others by the county. That is anomalous and deeply unfair because some people will be able to travel the breadth of Suffolk, but others will be prevented from travelling the length of Gloucestershire. The Government overlook that unfairness at their peril because boundaries in rural areas are often wholly arbitrary.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for throwing more confusion and complication on what is already a difficult situation. He demonstrates how difficult it is. No doubt the Minister will explain how Tewkesbury can be satisfied that it will be fully compensated for what is, on the face of it, a sensible measure.
 My other point concerns costs for places such as Tewkesbury and it will certainly apply also in Cotswold. Under current legislation, the borough council can make discretionary concessions. In areas where there are few buses or in very large areas, there will be more concessions and the requirement on those authorities will be greater. For example, Cheltenham and Gloucester are self-contained and people can live there without leaving them unless they want to, but it is different in country areas where the concessions will have to be greater. Equalisation of the age will increase the cost of the extra concessions. It could be said that Tewkesbury does not have to give them, but I know from my mailbag that there is a great requirement on Tewkesbury to give them. The extra cost arises not only from the mandatory concessions, but from the additional concessions, which the Government will not finance. I want them to be clear about the knock-on effect for Tewkesbury. 
 We have heard about crossing borders and that it important in my constituency. It is ridiculous that some villagers with Worcestershire postcodes will be unable to travel to Worcestershire because they live not in Worcestershire but in Gloucestershire, although they have Worcestershire postcodes. They will be unable to travel to Evesham, for example. People who live in places outside Gloucestershire with Tewkesbury postcodes will be unable to use the scheme to travel to Tewkesbury. What is even more worrying is that none of the 12,000 people living in Churchdown in my constituency--it is one of the largest villages in the country and only a few miles from Gloucester and Cheltenham--will be able to travel to Cheltenham hospital because they will not qualify for the concession as they will have to cross a borough border. We have only one or two cottage hospitals in my constituency, so if they need even semi-major treatment, the Bill will not cover them when they go to those hospitals. It is difficult to design a scheme to suit everyone, but the Government must deal with the problems that I have outlined.

John Spellar: The Bill equalises the availability of concessionary fare passes to men and women. The financial side of the Bill seeks broadly to compensate local authorities for the additional costs that they incur in the course of that equalisation. According to my hon. Friend the Whip, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who was on the Committee that considered the Transport Bill in 2000, some of the measures that cover borders were supported and encouraged by the Opposition, especially because the areas where borders were crossed often related to the activities of specific operators.
 Many of the relevant matters are for the discretion of the local authorities. Under the Bill, and subject to discretionary decisions that they take, the Government will compensate authorities for the additional expenditure that they bear as a result of the legislation. Borders, water transport and other such matters have been covered by previous legislation and are for the discretion of local authorities. If we allowed discretion for local authorities on the scheme, we would end up with differential conditions. That is the nature of discretion and of local autonomy.

Chris Grayling: I want to return to my argument. It is tremendously important, although less so in places like London, which has huge sums of money available to support bus services, than in shire counties where the sums are relatively small for the great demands on them. Will the Minister assure us that those councils will not lose out and will not have to divert resources from other programmes to support the scheme because the Government have not fully funded them? The answer should be a simple yes or no.

John Spellar: I have described the re-funding provision at considerable length on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members seem to hold the view that the streets of London and other metropolitan authorities are paved with gold. Any examination of the poverty indicators, ward by ward and borough by borough, would dispel that impression. I accept the fact that extremes of poverty and wealth live alongside each other in London and to an extent in other metropolitan areas as well. It should not be assumed that wealth is universally spread across the city.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would like to dispel the Minister's impression: there is as much poverty in rural areas as there is in London. As I suggested on Second Reading, there should not be a postcode lottery on fairness. The people of London can cross one borough and still receive a discretionary fare, so why should people living in rural areas not cross from one borough to another and still get a concession?

John Spellar: Local authorities can come to local agreements to that effect, as they have in London and the metropolitan authorities. That is the nature of local discretion. If the predominant political tendencies in those areas have declined to provide such services, that is a matter for history. It cannot be tackled in the Bill, which has the narrow purpose of dealing with age equalisation and the consequential financial reimbursement to local authorities.
 The hon. Member for Cotswold talked about pensionable age and asked whether, when the changeover starts in 2010, a future Parliament will implement the regulation to begin the process towards harmonisation at 65 in 2020. Parliament has already taken the step of moving towards equalisation of pension age, which is a substantial change. He pointed out that a considerable number of people aged between 60 and 65 would still work under the system and would not be in receipt of pension while harmonisation was being attained. The position is logical and will commend itself to a future House, but in no way could we bind that House. I am sure that the Committee and the House will agree that we are providing the mechanism by which a future House can harmonise both the age of attaining pension and that of eligibility for a concessionary fare pass, for the reason why such passes were introduced in the first place.

Andrew Turner: I draw the Minister back to the first part of his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. He spoke of discretion. The point that he has failed to mention—I am sure that he has not failed to grasp it—is that in London there is no discretion. There is a requirement—imposed by a previous Government and reiterated by his Government through legislation—that cross-border travel be provided for. It is unfair that Londoners should be reimbursed at a higher level because there is an obligation affecting London but not other areas.

John Spellar: My recollection—I am prepared to check the record—is that the obligation arose out of the abolition of the Greater London council, which had already provided such a facility. Had that abolition been accompanied by the removal of the concessionary fares scheme, I suspect that that move by a Conservative Government would have been even more unpopular than it was.
 That scheme was introduced again by the democratic decision of publicly elected authorities in London. Opposition Members cannot keep raising matters that have been decided for good local reasons by the elected local authorities in certain parts of the country. Some have decided not to adopt such a scheme. We are saying to those who have adopted such schemes that the legislation will impose additional costs. We are therefore seeking to provide money to recompense them for that. I commend the clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has got half way there. I accept that details of schemes already in existence were decided by previous Acts, and that this Bill merely seeks to alter the age. Nevertheless, I do not think that the Minister deviated enough from his definition of ``broadly'' to ensure that every single local authority will be fully reimbursed by this measure. Under those circumstances, we cannot do anything other than vote against the clause.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 6.

Whereupon the Chairman declared herself with the Ayes, so as to presence the Bill in its existing form.
The Chairman: In accordance with precedent, the casting vote of the Chair must go with keeping the Bill.
Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. It is unprecedented in my nine years in the House for a Government to draw on the Chairman's casting vote in a Division on clause stand part, particularly when the Government has a majority of the size of this Government's. It is incompetent management on the part of the Government not to get enough of their people into the Committee to ensure that they can win such votes.

Ann Widdecombe: It is not for me to comment on the competence or otherwise of any Whips who might be members of the Committee. I can only reiterate my decision that the Bill must be preserved in its original form and that therefore clause 1 stands part. However, before I come to clause 2, I make the gentle observation that interventions should be interventions and not speeches masquerading as interventions. Clause 2 Commencement and transitional provision

Clause 2 - Commencement and transitional provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Spellar: The clause contains the commencement provisions. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State in England, or the National Assembly of Wales, to bring the provisions of the Act into force by order. Subsection (2) is necessary due to the different legislative situation in Greater London. The concessionary travel scheme operated jointly by the London boroughs granting free travel under the freedom pass is linked to the boroughs' financial year, commencing on 1 April. Clause 1(2)—the amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999—will be brought into force to take effect from the beginning of any financial year.
 Subsection (3) is also necessary because of the legislative position in Greater London. The terms of the borough scheme must be agreed between the boroughs and Transport for London by 1 January in any given year if it is to become operative at the beginning of the following financial year. That allows the London boroughs to make advance arrangements for Transport for London under 240(1) and (2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 on the assumption that there is in force a requirement to grant travel concessions to men aged 60 and over, even before clause 1(2) comes into force.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not sure what the Government's intentions are. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, because he has touched on the point that I raised on Second Reading and in the Committee this morning about whether the Government expect to have the Bill on the statute book by 31 December 2001 so that Transport for London can start to operate a revised scheme at the beginning of the next financial year in April 2002. I would be grateful if the Minister were to clarify that matter because it is important for Londoners and for Transport for London, which has the unenviable task of trying to make the scheme work.

Andrew Turner: I have a simple question, which hardly needs to be dignified with the title of a speech. The commencement of transitional provision will take effect from a date or dates to be nominated by the Government. What is the date on which the Government will determine whether additional resources have to be provided for the implementation of the Bill? Has the date already passed, or is it the date immediately preceding that on which the different elements of the Bill are to be implemented? A local authority or group of local authorities might implement a scheme that did not fulfil the requirements of the Bill, but was otherwise legal and in accordance with the authorities' discretionary powers, between now and the date given by the Minister for the commencement of the Bill's provisions. If certain authorities did so, would the Government accept the obligation—as stated earlier by the Minister—to compensate them for the cost of implementing the Bill on top of their scheme?

John Spellar: On the question of implementation, the arrangements for London are different because of the different provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 compared with other local authority legislation. We would obviously aim for a common date for the implementation of the scheme. As we said, that would be in 2003 at the latest.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That was precisely the point that I was trying to make. If it does not come into operation in 2002, Transport for London will have the unenviable task of having to decide whether to delay implementation until 2004 or to carry the burden itself between 2002 and 2003. Will the Minister clarify that point?

John Spellar: First, we shall be seeking a common date for implementation. Secondly, as we exhaustively set out in the debate on the previous clause, we shall ensure that compensatory arrangements are in place and that local authorities will be broadly compensated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is assured.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked about the level of scheme. Negotiations will be taking place in 2002-03 for funding in 2002-03 and 2003-04. Inevitably, there will be discussions between the local authorities associations and the Department on the precise date for which schemes should be considered for incorporation, of which discussions with the Association of London Government are but one. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Short title, interpretation and extent

John Spellar: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
 The amendment removes the standard provision inserted by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

John Spellar: Subsection (1) gives the Bill its short title. Subsection (2) defines the appropriate Minister—that is the Secretary of State in England, and the National Assembly in Wales. Subsection (3) provides for the Bill's provisions to apply to England and Wales only.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What parallel discussions are to be held between the Department and the National Assembly for Wales on bringing the Bill into force on a common date? What arrangements are in place for cross-border issues in Wales? Will the Welsh Assembly treat the whole of Wales as one authority? If so, it gives even more force to the argument that I and my hon. Friend have put, that cross-border issues should be addressed by the Government, even if not in the Bill.

Chris Grayling: My question is more a matter of information than anything else. The Bill clearly relates to England and Wales. Will the Minister assure me that any extra costs incurred as a result of similar steps being taken in Northern Ireland and Scotland will not result in extra costs to the United Kingdom public purse but will be met from existing budgets controlled by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? There would otherwise be a question over financial implications beyond purely devolved matters.

John Spellar: My understanding is that they will be met from existing budgets. Indeed, I understand that Scotland is debating the balance of funding between different items on several such issues. As for Wales, we expect equalisation for eligibility for travel concessions to start at the same time as in England—that is in April 2003. Our officials are also talking with representatives from the National Assembly for Wales and are keeping in touch on a regular basis to ensure that there is a degree of common practice.
 As to the extent of the concession in Wales, I am not entirely sure what stage the Assembly has reached, but I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the matter. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Scheduled train and ferry services etc. (no. 2)

`.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this Act taking effect, bring forward regulations to provide that elderly persons who travel as foot passengers on train, ferry and other scheduled surface or sub-surface services shall enjoy travel concessions no less favourable than those provided under section 1 of this Act; provided that, before bringing forward regulations under this section, he shall consult such service providers as he deems appropriate. 
 (2) In this section ``elderly person'' means a person who has attained the age of 60 years.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ann Widdecombe: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—Scheduled coach services (No.2)—
 `.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this Act taking effect, bring forward regulations to provide that elderly persons who travel as foot passengers on scheduled coach services shall enjoy travel concessions no less favourable than those provided under section 1 of this Act; provided that, before bringing forward regulations under this section, he shall consult such service providers as he deems appropriate.
 (2) In this section ``elderly person'' means a person who has attained the age of 60 years.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The new clauses principally arose from the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and cover ground previously covered in the Committee. We believe that other forms of transport should be considered in the concessionary scheme, especially for men aged between 60 and 65. My hon. Friend will speak for himself, but I can imagine that some of his constituents will want to make the journey regularly across the Solent, especially men aged between 60 and 65 who live on the island but work on the mainland. People who live on the mainland may travel to the island for work and use the service regularly. For all those men of that age who use that service, I would be grateful for an explanation from the Government.
 I have already quoted the passage in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, in section 240 (6)(f), whereby Transport for London provides a concessionary scheme for 
``passenger transport services on the river Thames or a tributary of the river Thames between places in Greater London or between places in Greater London and places outside Greater London.'' 
The principle is therefore already well established in London that concessionary schemes can be operated under those circumstances, and the Government may want to consider it in the exceptional circumstances of people crossing the Solent. 
 We have not discussed train services at all during our proceedings. How would local authorities operate the scheme for those services, given that most people using them would cross from one local authority area to another? 
 I will finish with those brief remarks, as time is of the essence, and we should quickly conclude our discussion of the new clauses.

Andrew Turner: I have little to add to what my hon. Friend said.

Sally Keeble: I, albeit rather belatedly, also welcome you to the Committee, Miss Widdecombe.
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold for explaining the purpose of the proposed new clauses, but I must ask the Committee to disappoint him. Both new clauses would extend the provision of statutory concessionary fare schemes to other modes of transport, including trains, ferries, metros and long distance coaches. Local authorities have discretionary powers under the Transport Act 1985 to extend their schemes to other public transport services if they consider that to be in the best interests of local needs. Extending the provision of concessionary fares to other modes of transport—rail and ferry services have been mentioned—is an attractive proposition. Some local authorities already offer wider schemes; London is probably the best example, but there are others in which concessionary travel extends to metros and local train services.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. If I may, I move that the question be put.

Ann Widdecombe: I am afraid that I am going to allow adequate time for debate on this question.

Sally Keeble: Some of the points to which I was going to respond seemed to be of particular concern to Conservative Members. I should have thought that they would have wanted to wait for some response.
 There is nothing to prevent local authorities from offering concessions if they think that that will benefit their elderly and disabled citizens. The provisions of the Bill will extend the same benefits to many aged 60 or over. So far as making statutory provision for cheaper fares on other modes of transport is concerned, we have to return to the issue of cost. In England alone, local authorities spend £490 million per year on their schemes. The provisions of the Bill could cost them an additional £50 million a year. 
 I notice that there is mention in the clauses of sub-surface and ferry services, without any further definition. I assume that that applies to mainland services and does not include, for example, cross-channel services, which would extend the scope of the Bill very widely and add greatly to the cost. 
 New clause 4 refers to concessionary fares on long-distance scheduled coach services. Hon. Members will recall that I announced to the House on Second Reading that we had agreed in principle to a proposal under which coach operators would offer a half-price fare to older and disabled passengers on long-distance scheduled coaches in England. In return for those concessions, operators would, for the first time, receive a fuel duty rebate, as recommended by the Commission for Integrated Transport. Many older and disabled people rely on coaches to travel long distances, and will welcome half-price fares. The announcement, which is a further demonstration of our commitment to combating social exclusion, has been widely welcomed, not least by the coach industry. We shall now consult the industry to work out the precise details of the scheme. 
 The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales are consulting in parallel with a view to agreeing how best to co-ordinate the arrangements throughout Britain. I am sure that the best way of achieving our objectives is to accept the Commission's proposal linking concessionary fares with fuel duty rebates. There is no need to include that proposal in primary legislation, nor would it be appropriate, given that we are talking about long-distance journeys, to bring the arrangements within local concessionary schemes. In the light of the outcome of the discussions with the industry, I shall bring forward regulations during the course of the year that will make the necessary arrangements for the payment of fuel duty rebate. 
 Conservative Members also raised the matter of a statement by the Prime Minister on 4 July. That stated that concessionary fares were to be extended to long coach journeys through the means that I have described. There is no issue about linking that statement with this Bill. I do not know which statement is being considered, but these arrangements are certainly reflected in the answer that was given by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has repeated his point about the ability to cross the Solent.

Don Foster: May I apologise to you, Miss Widdecombe, for being late?
 The Government have many transport issues under consideration and, although the Liberal Democrats did well in the last general election and our numbers have swelled, there are not enough of us. In view of the Minister's remarks about the progress that is being made, could she give some clearer indication of the likely date for the implementation of the half-fare scheme on coaches?

Sally Keeble: I cannot at present give a date for implementation, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman and others who are as interested know the implementation date as soon as possible.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has repeatedly talked about people crossing the Solent to look for work and attend hospital appointments. As has been said, local authorities have the discretion to extend the scheme, and I understand that some health authorities are talking to local authorities about making such a provision.

Andrew Turner: The point is not so much that the local authority has no power to make the payment, but that it is unfair that part of a long-distance journey undertaken by someone from my constituency that begins with a ferry service and connects with a long-distance coach service is not paid for nationally, despite the fact that it cannot be undertaken by coach because there are no long-distance coach services from my constituency. Instead, Ministers expect the local authority to pay the subsidy.
 The Prime Minister boasted that he was providing travel concessions at a national level for coach services, but people cannot access those services from the Isle of Wight unless they first access a ferry. It seems only fair that the provision should be funded nationally.

Sally Keeble: Local authorities throughout the country considered the needs of their communities and provided concessionary fare schemes before the Bill was introduced. Some had extended them to take the needs of their communities into account. They saw doing so as part of their responsibility and service to the public. We have extended the provision dramatically for old people and continue to improve it. However, local authorities, health services and others should play their part as well. The local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's area can use their discretion to provide services for local people. The issue has been dealt with repeatedly on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and we have probably exhausted it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Under-Secretary say something about train journeys? In line with the Prime Minister's statement in column 259 of Hansard for 4 July 2001 that pensioners should be able to get concessions on long journeys, will her announcement on long-distance coach journeys cover pensioners' long-distance train journeys as well?

Sally Keeble: No. We have prioritised buses because of their role in local transport services, and have not included trains. We are providing for concessionary fares on coaches, albeit through a slightly different mechanism.
 On the basis of what I have said, and given that Opposition Members hope to get through the remaining clauses reasonably quickly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Andrew Turner: I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would deal more sympathetically with the points made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. She has not appreciated the fact that not only residents of my constituency travel back and forth from it to the mainland. One reason for the new clauses was the Prime Minister's boast on 4 July. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said to him:
 ``Pensioners are . . . asking for a concessionary scheme for longer distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?'' 
The right hon. Gentleman replied: 
``We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys.''—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.] 
A pensioner from Suffolk can take advantage of the scheme that the Government are proposing, which will get them as far as Southampton, but they cannot then get to the island by taking advantage of a similar concessionary scheme—terrific. The concessionary scheme is funded nationally by the fuel duty rebate and it should enable people to reach all corners of England and Wales, not just those corners that happen to be on the mainland. 
 New clause 4 is designed to put the concessionary coach fares scheme on a statutory footing because what the Government give today they can take away tomorrow—if not this Government, another one. I would like to make it clear that neither side intends that the scheme should be taken away tomorrow. 
 New clause 3 is designed to enable a pensioner from any part of the country to benefit from a concession on journeys to the Isle of Wight as they can on journeys to Bournemouth, Brighton, Blackpool or Barnstaple. That is an equitable way of treating pensioners and the only means of achieving it is to extend similar concessions to coach and ferry travel. That is what we are asking for. Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning, said: 
 ``Our intention is to extend fuel duty rebates to operators of long distance scheduled coach services in return for their offering half price fares to pensioners and disabled people. We are trying to make progress in relation to that.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1901.] 
Pensioners from all over the country, not just those from the Isle of Wight, would benefit from the new clause.

Don Foster: I apologise to the Committee for intervening at this stage. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on his valiant efforts on behalf of his constituents. However, he is making rather heavy weather of his case because the issue is simple. We need a clear answer from the Minister so that we can move on.
 Under the Government's scheme, as I understand it, and I would be grateful for clarification, any pensioner in Britain who embarks on a scheduled coach journey will be able to pay a half fare for that journey—funded through the fuel duty rebate. In this scheme it should not matter, as it does in other parts of the Bill, where the pensioner is from or where he gets on or off the coach. That would mean that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as soon as they disembarked from the ferry, would be able to get on a long distance coach and benefit from a half-fare scheme. If that is the case, half the hon. Gentleman's problem is solved. The other half relates to the ferry, with respect to which the Minister will have to suffer the ire and indignation of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman used the relevant phrase, ``scheduled services''. The Bill is concerned only with scheduled services, so discussion of taxis and other forms of transport is extraneous. We must consider whether people can travel to places where there are scheduled services. That touches on some of the issues that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was talking about. If places do not have scheduled bus or coach services, that will obviously affect whether pensioners can travel to them, which is an unfortunate limitation.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that pensioners should be able to go to a long list of places; he presumably intends them to travel by coach. We are talking about scheduled services, so people who travel by scheduled services as defined in the Bill will receive the rebate. It is hard to say exactly how the coach scheme will work because we are still consulting and we need to know the details of the operation. However, it would not solve the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised so consistently. I congratulate him on that. In virtually every debate in which I have heard him speak—not only in Committee but in the House—he has consistently spoken about the difficulties that people have in crossing the Solent. That strip of water seems to be a problem for the hon. Gentleman. The fact that people can get a free coach when they reach the other side seems completely irrelevant to him. He must accept that if pensioners want to cross that strip of water, the concession will have to be paid by the local authority. Indeed, discussions are already taking place for hospital services. The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, but that is as far as we can go. We must be absolutely sure to tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) exactly when the coach journeys come into effect, because I am sure that he has a particular constituency interest.

Don Foster: I hope that I am not pressing my luck. I absolutely understand that the Under-Secretary still has to consult on particular schemes and that she cannot give us the full details today. Will she give the Committee an indication of the scheme that she will be consulting upon? Does she envisage that it will follow the lines that I described a few minutes ago? I suggested that someone living on the Isle of Wight might travel to Southampton by the expensive ferry—it will not be subsidised by the Government in any way, shape of form—but that once in Southampton they could pick up a scheduled coach service and benefit from a half-fare scheme to wherever that person wished to go, perhaps even to Bath, where that person might spend lots of money, because we need it.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman always pushes his luck. The answer is yes.
 Finally, what the Prime Minister said is happening. We shall extend the scheme, allowing for the possibility of long-distance travel, but the question did not specify whether it was travel by train or by coach. It is all part of trying to provide pensioners with a better deal—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sally Keeble: No, I shall not. We have reached the end of our discussion. There has been consistency in what has been said. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was thinking of withdrawing the new clause, but as the Under-Secretary would not give way I am not so sure. Perhaps that will teach her a lesson. We shall now be here for another five minutes. At least she had the grace to smile at that and I do not wish to carp.
 I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. He is doing his constituents a huge service by pursuing the matter so doggedly. I hope that they recognise the tremendous work that he does on their behalf. It seems to me that what he has wrung out of the Government is a bit of an anomaly. If, as she promised, the Under-Secretary produces that long-distance bus travel scheme, whereby pensioners can get travel at half fare on all long-distance scheduled bus services, if the bus goes on the ferry from or to the island, the pensioner will get the concession, but if the pensioner goes by foot on to the ferry, he will not. That is daft. The hon. Lady tried to brush the matter aside by saying that the scheme applies only to scheduled services, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight that he is talking about scheduled ferry services. Transport for London provides the concessions for the scheduled services on the Thames, as I have demonstrated. 
 My reason for intervening on the Under-Secretary at the time when she would not give way—which was a pity as it would have been nice to have the matter clarified—was that she said that the question put to the Prime Minister on long-distance journeys did not specify coaches. I take it that the scheme will also include trains.

Sally Keeble: I am sorry that I did not give way. The question said:
 ``Pensioners in my constituency are very pleased that they have no longer to pay the £6 per year for their concessionary half-fare bus . . . Pensioners are therefore asking for a concessionary scheme for longer distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?'' 
The answer: 
 ``We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys.''—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.] 
It is very specific. It does not mention the train.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It does not mention trains, so we have that matter clarified. That leads to what I was about to say. I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the paucity of bus services in rural areas. Sitting in Northampton or London, it is hard to do so. Even scheduled long-distance bus services are fairly few and far between. I invite her—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury will join me—to come to Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend and I will organise it and we will show her the paucity of bus services. It might be instructive for her to find out the difficulty that some of our remote villagers have in travelling about our constituencies.

Laurence Robertson: I am delighted to extend an invitation to the Under-Secretary to visit, so that we can show her our constituencies—not only to illustrate the lack of bus services but to dispel the myth that we are a prosperous area. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold travels down here every week, so he knows that although the train services from Cheltenham and Gloucester to London might be expected to be very good, they are not.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes the case for transport. Public services—full stop—in Gloucestershire are poor. I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to consider whether train services can be included in the long-distance travel scheme. A number of train services within Gloucestershire would offer some choice, albeit limited. I ask her to consider the matter seriously.
 It is disappointing that the Government have not chosen to accede at least to the principles of the new clauses and to acknowledge the particular problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight faces in his constituency. Bearing him in mind, I recommend that he join me in voting for the new clauses and I give notice that I wish to press them to the vote. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 6Extension of concessionary fares to persons18 or younger (greater london)

New Clause 6 - Extension of concessionary fares to persons18 or younger (greater london)

`. The appropriate Minister shall consult the Association of London Government and the Greater London Authority over the possibilities of extending the concessionary schemes to people aged 18 years or younger in full-time education within London.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ann Widdecombe: With this we may discuss new clause 9—Extension of concessionary fares to persons 18 or younger—
 `. The appropriate Minister shall consult local authorities over the possibilities of extending the concessionary schemes to people aged 18 years or younger in full-time education.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Miss Widdecombe, for your very clear chairmanship. Perhaps I need to develop a louder voice, as on several occasions you have not heard me shout for the ayes or for the noes. Next time, I shall make sure that you are deafened and that our voice is well and truly heard.
 Government Back Benchers have voted against granting their own pensioners concessions on ferries and other forms of transport. Let us see if we can do better with these new clauses by encouraging them to support us in extending concessionary travel schemes. New clause 6 would extend such schemes to those aged 18 or under who are in full-time education in London, and new clause 9 would require the appropriate Minister to 
``consult local authorities over the possibilities of extending the concessionary schemes to people aged 18 years or younger in full-time education.'' 
The new clauses are important. We want to encourage our youngsters to travel by public transport where possible, rather than adding to the ever-growing number of cars in this country. If we can delay the urge to own a car the moment that they reach 17 and pass the test, we would be doing everybody a service. We would also be doing a service to the youngsters themselves. After all, having chosen to stay on in full-time education, many are by definition on very low incomes. The new clauses bear some scrutiny, and if the Government will not accept them I hope that they will at least consider them seriously. 
 We know that, whatever the system, students in full-time education are in considerable difficulty. Systems such as student loans and a graduate tax have been discussed, as has the question of whether students should contribute to fees. In a small way, the new clauses would help those who want to stay on in further and higher education, and it is in the nation's interest to encourage them to do so. The new clauses would be of particular benefit in our bigger inner cities. An attempt to stem the number of cars owned by students would greatly help the travelling public. Students' cars are often ill maintained and therefore cause some of the bigger problems. If an appropriate concessionary scheme were in place for those in full-time education, we would all benefit. 
 The Local Government Association has suggested that the Bill provides an opportunity for school children to receive mandatory concession fees, and the new clauses encourage the Government to consult on the pros and cons of such an extension. In the light of that, I strongly urge the Minister think about the new clauses. It may or may not be appropriate to extend the scheme; for example, it may be appropriate only in London, where there is the biggest problem. The mayor is proposing congestion charges and other plans in an effort to reduce extreme congestion in central London. Anyone who uses any form of transport in London knows how severe that congestion is at certain times of the day, at any rate. 
 People who have to live in cheaper accommodation on the edge of London and in the suburbs often need to own a car. It is difficult for them to get to remote university campuses late at night or early in the morning when they are doing their studies, so they resort to their cars. If we could encourage them just a little to think twice about whether they need to own a car, or could travel on public transport instead, it would do everyone a service. Will the Minister seriously consider the new clauses?

Don Foster: I commend the hon. Member for Cotswold for raising this matter. I have some concern with the wording of new clauses 6 and 9, which leaves in some doubt whether the Conservative party favours extending the concessionary scheme to people aged 18 or under who are in full-time education. The new clauses raise the possibility of a discussion, rather than including in the Bill the requirement for the Government to extend the scheme to those groups.
 I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's intention was to have a discussion of the issue. He has rightly drawn our attention to the importance of developing opportunities for the provision of public transport for such people. I suggest an additional reason why such an extension would be valuable in helping the Government to achieve their intentions. All the evidence suggests that about 50 per cent. of young people at the age of 16 give up the opportunity to enter further or higher education. When surveyed on why they made that choice, a large percentage cite travel problems as a major factor. Alongside the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, I believe it important to consider the educational aspect. 
 I have no doubt that the Minister who replies will draw attention to the cost of carrying out the endeavour. There are considerable differences over what the figure would be. My hon. Friend in another place, Baroness Scott, estimated a figure in the region of £50 million. Lord Falconer, responding to the debate, suggested that the much higher figure of £180 million was more realistic. I am not in a position to judge between those competing claims about the expense.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The whole matter might be more palatable were it restricted to London, at least for a start. There are particular merits to operating the scheme in London, where the cost of living is higher and traffic congestion is greater.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that view. I would be interested to hear the reaction from young people in his constituency if he promoted something for Londoners that they were denied, but that is a matter for him and his relationship with his constituents. Were it possible to find the money for such a scheme, and were it deemed an appropriate use of it, it would be better and more sensible for us to look at a nationwide scheme.
 I understand that there will be arguments about the amount of money involved. I place it on record that the Liberal Democrat party raised the issue in our manifesto at the last general election, but made it clear that it was an aspiration, not something within our fully costed manifesto. People have often accused the Liberal Democrats of saying that we will do anything and everything and pay for it out of our extra 1p on income tax, but this is a good rebuttal. We made it very clear that it would not cover this. We said that the money could not be found immediately, but that it was a longer-term aspiration. 
 Although the Government are likely to say no, for the reasons that I have given—and not least the cost—they might also say no because they do see the point in consulting on something that will not lead to anything. That would be the result if we accepted the new clauses. The Government would probably then say that they were improving young people's opportunities through access to various discount travel schemes. That was their response in July, when Lord Falconer in another place talked about the way in which his Department was 
``working closely with the Department for Education and Skills in developing a Connexions Card which offers a range of commercial discounts for young people in full-time education and is capable of carrying existing travel concessions.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1900.] 
It is now long after the third week in July so the Minister should be able to tell us that significant progress has at last been made and that she has an exciting announcement for young people not only in London, but in the rest of the country. I look forward to hearing it shortly.

Andrew Turner: In supporting the new clauses, I want to draw attention to the successful operation of a similar scheme on the Isle of Wight. The council came in for a bit of inferential flak from the Minister over its failure to provide concessionary fares on ferries, but I am pleased to say that it has an extraordinarily good record in providing a so-called youth mover ticket for young people under 18. It is a concessionary scheme that is available to all young people on the island regardless of whether they are in education, enabling them to travel on public transport at, I believe, half price—not being eligible I have never got to the bottom of the exact cost. It has the great benefit in rural areas—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold would not restrict the scheme to London—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Bath deliberately twisted my words. If he looks carefully at the record, he will see that I said ``initially'' and then expressed the hope that it could be rolled out elsewhere.

Andrew Turner: I am pleased to accept that in the hope that the rolling out would take place rapidly.
 On the island, the scheme provides several benefits. First, it encourages people to travel by public transport. Secondly, it means that they are less likely to hitchhike at night. I realise that that is not a common practice in rural areas on the mainland, but it has been on the island, which is, I am pleased to say, considerably safer—but still not very safe—as a place in which to hitchhike. Thirdly, it means that people are not travelling in cars with friends who may have drunk rather more than is good for them. Fourthly, it enables parents to get to bed early instead of operating as taxi services. 
 The scheme offers a combination of benefits that would be felt in rural areas, apart from the benefits for metropolitan areas that my hon. Friend advertised so effectively.

Chris Grayling: I very much welcome the objective of the new clauses. The principle of expanding concessionary fares to support young people is extremely important. Indeed, if I have one criticism it is that we have not gone far enough. There is a case for considering whether such schemes should apply to all those in higher education, given that they already incur substantial costs when living through their university or college years. There is certainly a case for extending the scheme to those over 18. However, I recognise the limitations that we face in tabling new clauses, in that the Government have not been entirely receptive to such proposed extensions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Not at all receptive.

Chris Grayling: Indeed. Perhaps we are already pushing our luck in respect of 18-year-olds. However, it is worth doing because it is an important principle to provide such support, especially to those between 16 and 18. In much of today's public transport world, when teenagers reach the age of 16 they lose the half-fare status that they enjoyed as a child, yet few of them find that their financial situation has changed between the ages of 15 years and 364 days and 16 years. The majority continue with some form of education and do not immediately gain the benefits of an income, so to have a mandatory cut-off point at the age of 16 is unhelpful and unfair.
 If we can encourage the Government, through the two new clauses, to take a long hard look at the potential to develop schemes that address that financial situation and that deliver a valuable social resource for younger people, it would be welcome. I commend the new clauses and, even if the Government are not willing to accept them in their entirety and fall back on the votes of the silent majority behind them, I hope that they will accept the principles of our objectives behind tabling them and will consider what support they can offer a scheme of this kind in future.

Laurence Robertson: I have just a couple of points to make, one of which concerns school transport. I make no apology for telling the Committee about my constituency because we are here to represent our constituents.
 I am aware that there is some subsidised travel for children travelling to school but for certain mileages there is not. We know, from driving anywhere, how much heavier the traffic is during the school term compared with the holidays—there is a tremendous difference. If there are few buses, as in my constituency, transport becomes a problem with regard to getting to school and the congestion caused around schools from people travelling in cars. New clause 9 is particularly relevant to my area and would address such problems. 
 I will draw on an example concerning the national lottery, which I assure you, Miss Widdecombe, is relevant, but I must crave your indulgence for a moment. Earlier, I referred to a large village in my constituency—Churchdown—which has about 12,000 inhabitants. They applied for a lottery grant to build swimming baths in the village. The reply from the National Lotteries Board turned down the application. One of the main reasons for that was the fact that the village is within a 20-minute drive of similar facilities. The then Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), said that that reply was absolute rubbish—she understood its implications. It meant that if children wanted to go to the nearest swimming baths, their parents would have to take them, and come back, then collect them and come back—four car journeys would be necessary because children under 17 are not allowed to drive. The alternative would be not to go swimming, or to pay full fares on the bus. I was stunned by the reason for the rejection, however it is an illustration of how new clause 9 would help children in that area. It is a village of 12,000 so this is not a small problem.

Sally Keeble: I have listened carefully to the points made by Opposition Members and have considerable sympathy for their strength of feeling and for some of the sentiments expressed.
 It is part of the Government's agenda to provide public transport to combat social exclusion and to deal with safety issues. It is an attractive proposition to require local authorities to offer concessionary fares to other groups of people including young adults but, under the Bill, we must be realistic. Although I fully accept that the new clauses would simply require the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, to consult local authorities on the possibility of extending schemes to young adults, I am not sure what purpose such a consultation would serve. 
 We have heard much about local authorities' discretionary powers in relation to extending concessionary fare schemes. Local authorities can choose to extend their schemes to young adults and I congratulate the local authority of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on its innovative scheme. Local authorities already have a statutory duty, with which most hon. Members will be familiar, to provide free travel for school pupils within certain ages and for certain distances. 
 In relation to the pertinent points raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury about safety around schools, the Government have provided funding to establish school travel plans to deal with the issues that he identified such as encouraging children to walk or cycle to school and dealing with parking and safety around schools. That is recognition of the problems that he identified. 
 Local authorities have the power to provide concessionary travel for young people up to 18 years of age who are in full-time education. That applies not only to travel to and from college, but to other journeys. Given the number of journeys expected to be undertaken by young adults, and bearing in mind the social activities that were mentioned—it is important to encourage young people not to drink and drive—the revenue foregone by transport operators would be substantial. I can confirm the figure quoted by the hon. Member for Bath of approximately £180 million. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that work is being undertaken to ensure that young people's needs are not overlooked. My Department is working closely with the Department for Education and Skills in developing a Connexions card. It will offer a range of commercial discounts for young people in full-time education, and it will be capable of carrying existing travel concessions. There is no exciting announcement to make—I have not known many exciting announcements in Standing Committee—but we shall examine the options that exist for travel, which I hope will generate yet another postcard for the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster: I do not know whether it warrants a postcard just yet. We are discussing an announcement that was made on 24 July by the Minister's noble Friend in another place. That was a long time ago, and what we have just heard from the Minister is almost identical to the wording of the announcement that was given to another place on 24 July. If we are not going to get an announcement, I hope that we can have an indication that progress has been rapid and that a clear announcement is imminent. Even if an announcement cannot be made in Committee because big announcements are not made in Standing Committee, I hope that it is coming soon. Can the Minister at least give us a little bit of comfort by telling us that something has happened?

Sally Keeble: We are making progress and we shall examine these proposals. In particular, we shall examine the options for travel so that we can deal with some of the issues that hon. Members have raised today. I assure hon. Members that we take seriously the points that they have raised about the importance of ensuring that transport is used as a means of combating social exclusion, providing greater safety and ensuring that young people are not excluded from schools.
 Incidentally, another issue is making sure that young people are not excluded from work. There are some interesting initiatives going on around that matter through, for example, the urban bus challenge. 
 I ask hon. Members to withdraw the two new clauses. The Bill will extend better travel benefits to pensioners, which picks up a group that has previously been missed out. The Bill will mean progress for pensioners up and down the country, and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw the two new clauses in the interests of making progress and of completing the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is the last group of new clauses and amendments. We have made reasonable progress today. In response to the Minister's closing remark, it is not a matter of extending concessions either to pensioners or to young people; we are asking for both. The Bill, which I hope is about to be ratified in Committee, provides concessions for men aged between 60 and 64. We are asking the Government to consider our new clauses 6 and 9, which would require consultation on whether the Government should introduce a concessionary scheme for students aged 18 or under in full-time education.
 The hon. Member for Bath is a friend and a reasonable Member of Parliament, but he has been in a nit-picking mood today. If he did not like our amendments on the subject, he should have tabled his own amendments. I notice that only one of his amendments to this narrow Bill has been selected. We have had great difficulty in getting our amendments selected, but we managed 10. If the hon. Gentleman will settle for one tenth of the number of Members of Parliament in our party, I shall give way to him.

Don Foster: In that case, I shall not intervene. I am not prepared to accept the deal.

Ann Widdecombe: Order. If hon. Members wish to say anything, they must do so standing up, otherwise they must keep quiet.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am glad that I have managed to close down the hon. Gentleman. That is one of my biggest achievements in the Committee. He is looking very sheepish, but I do not know what is the matter with him. He has only one postcard for his wife this Session, so she will be feeling a little lonely. He will have to work harder in the next Standing Committee to ensure that he sends a few more, or she will feel unloved.

Chris Grayling: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's comments about the hon. Member for Bath, does he agree that the hon. Gentleman deserves credit for being the first member of his party whom I have heard admitting the limits of his mystical 1p on income tax.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Bath is a decent person and I am sure that he always tries to portray his party's policies with the utmost clarity. I shall return to the new clause before you call me to order, Miss Widdecombe.
 We must consider an agenda for young people. I say that with utmost seriousness. We saw at the last election one of the lowest turnouts since the war. We know from the figures that part of the reason for that low turnout was that young people of all political persuasions are simply turned off politics. If we could demonstrate in the House one or two measures such as the new clause to show that we are thinking carefully and hard about their needs and to improve the quality of their lives, we would be doing them and ourselves a great service. We must be very careful in a democracy when a whole section of our society is not participating in our democratic processes. 
 The Minister gave a costing of £180 million and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight castigated me for wanting to start the scheme in London. It would be as well to get it up and running in London, but, as he said, then very quickly to see where else in the United Kingdom it would be appropriate to roll it out. 
 I am sorry that the Minister has not felt it wise to accept our new clauses. I hope that she will not forget about the matter. My hon. Friends and I will not forget about it and if we do not hear of some Government progress with those ideas, we shall find opportunities to keep prompting them. 
 The hour is fairly late and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It would be remiss of me, on behalf of my hon. Friends in the official Opposition, if I did not thank you, Miss Widdecombe, for chairing this Committee firmly, but fairly and clearly. I also thank your co-Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, who was helpful with his rulings this morning on our points of order. I would also like to thank the Hansard writers, those in the Serjeant at Arms' Department and the police, who are often forgotten, for their hard work and the long hours that they spend in this place. I also thank the Ministers for the courteous—although it was not sympathetic—way in which they dealt with our requests, and their officials.

John Spellar: Further to that point of order, Miss Widdecombe. In the time available, I associate myself with the comments of the Opposition spokesman.

Don Foster: Further to the point of order, Miss Widdecombe. Being, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, a decent Member of Parliament, I too would like to be associated with his comments.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Committee for their kind comments. I echo their thanks to the police, the Hansard writers and others.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
Committee rose at Seven o'clock.